Human Rights Council voted today (March 22) to criticize the Sri Lankan
government for “not adequately address[ing] serious allegations
of violations of international law” when conducting its final
phases of war against the liberation guerrilla army LTTE (Liberation
Tigers for Tamil Eelam), which ended, May 18, 2009, with government-caused
massive blood baths.

The resolution called upon Sri Lanka to implement its own findings
and recommendations make in its report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC), but extended that call to “initiate credible
and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and
reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.” (“Independent action”
is not defined.)

Furthermore, the resolution with 24 in favor, 15 against and 8 abstentions,
“encourages” the Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights to offer the government “advice and technical assistance”
in implementing the LLRC recommendations, and to make a report on the
provision at the 22nd HRC session, a year from now.

In an earlier draft, Sri Lanka would have had to provide a time table
to show implementation was underway. To acquire India’s vote,
perhaps, the final resolution was watered down. No mention of war crimes
or crimes against humanity is included; instead, Sri Lanka is asked
to investigate “allegations of extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances.”
(See Tamilnet’s story with draft changes: http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=35027)

The resolution implies a lack of confidence in the Sri Lankan government
to enact even its own mild investigation, while preventing any discussion
of a more solid investigation into allegations of war crimes and crimes
against humanity that the “Report of the Secretary-General’s
Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka” called for last
year when it recommended an independent international investigation.

Comparison with May 2009 resolution

The resolution that US allies backed in May 2009 [the US was not on
the Council then] also called upon Sri Lanka to investigate itself for
possible human rights abuse, while condemning only the LTTE for terrorism
and war crimes and other human rights abuses. Even though this resolution
only asked the police to investigate themselves, many governments took
this as an affront to sovereignty. 29 countries voted to applaud Sri
Lanka and condemn only the LTTE. Nothing was stated about the suffering
of hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians. This resolution was opposed
by12 votes and there were six abstentions. The pattern was clear then:
nearly all the Non-Aligned Movement governments voted for Sri Lanka,
and the West voted for a possible critique.

This time the geo-political voting pattern was broken, and, coincidently,
disproved my prediction that Sri Lanka would come through without a
slap on the face.

The changes in voting are interesting:

Latin American and Africa changed votes significantly.

In 2009, all of the African governments on the Council voted fully
in favor of Sri Lanka with one abstention. This time the vote was split
with five in favor of the possible criticism, three opposed and five
abstentions.

In 2009, five of Latin American governments voted to fully support
Sri Lanka, two voted for some critique (Chile and Mexico) and Argentine
abstained. Today, six governments voted for the critique with only the
two ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America) governments
voting against any critique (Cuba and Ecuador).

The Middle Eastern governments did not change. They all voted not to
criticize with one abstention, the same pattern as in 2009.

Europe, west and east, voted the same way: slight critique.

Russia and China backed Sri Lanka fully.

The countries still on the Council since 2009, which changed their
votes from support of Sri Lanka to critique are: Cameroon and Nigeria;
India; Uruguay.

The most significant reversal is India, given its several decades’-long-relationship
supporting the Island nation so close to it. Although India changed
its vote it balanced the change with sovereign state solidarity with
Sri Lanka.

“While we subscribe to the broader message of this resolution
and the objectives it promotes, we also underline that any assistance
from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights or visits of
UN Special Procedures should be in consultation with and with the concurrence
of the Sri Lankan Government,” read the Indian statement, as reported
by Tamilnet.com

“Observers in Tamil Nadu said that the Indian statement contradicted
the demands put forward by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalithaa,
who had demanded India to declare SL President Mahinda Rajapaksa complicit
in genocide and war-crimes and to call for economic sanctions against
Sri Lanka till the country ensured equal status to Tamils,” the
website reported.

Uruguay’s change is also important. Its new president, José
Mujica, was a left-wing guerrilla who spent 15 years in prison, two
of it at the bottom of a well. He has placed poverty as the first order
of business.

Peru was not on the Council in 2009 but its new government with Ollanta
Humala as president voted to criticize Sri Lanka. He has also vowed
to tackle poverty as his first priority.

The fact that two African governments have reversed their vote may
indicate that international agitation has had an effect. More NAM governments
abstained this time as well.

Why the difference?

Although it was the greatest terrorist state in the world that introduced
the critical resolution, the United States is still a partner in the
war crimes and in genocide against Tamils. It always backed Sinhalese
chauvinism, discrimination against Tamils, and offered no aid to Tamil
civilians. But it sees an opportunity here to polish its image as a
“human rights supporter” while maintaining systematic human
rights abuse in its many invasions and military interventions in the
world.

The current US president is at war in seven countries, all circumscribing
United Nations laws against invading countries that have not invaded
the propagator of war: Afghanistan, Iraq [tens of thousands of US war
mercenaries still occupy Iraq], Pakistan, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan and
Libya. Furthermore, without US backing the Palestinian people would
have been liberated from Zionist Israel ages ago.

These are some factors in the change:

1. Indian Tamils in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka Tamils living in the Diaspora
in many countries have, since the end of the war, conducted many protests
and lobbied governments for justice. A few Tamils have even committed
suicide in despair and in protest.

2. Channel 4 two-part “Killing Field” series. The second
one was shown during these sessions and clearly pointed an accusing
finger at the Rajapaksa family regime for standing behind horrendous
murders, mutilations, rape; in short, war crimes and crimes against
humanity.

3. Mainstream Tamil parties in parliament in Tamil Nadu, India, were
a major influence in convincing the central government to change its
vote from one of applauding Sri Lanka to this critical stance.

4. The US is making it clear to Sri Lanka’s government that it
is dissatisfied with it even while approving a World Bank loan of $213
million for development in the capital city, Colombo, just a week ago.
The US keeps its fingers in the economy while it shows its unhappiness
because Rajapaksa is offering more economic concessions to China and
Russia. The US has lost its long-hoped for port in Trincomalee harbor,
which China will probably acquire.

It was China, as well as Russia, Israel and Iran and Pakistan (not
exactly blood brothers) that gave and sold more military hardware to
Sri Lanka in the last two-three years of war to annihilate the LTTE.
The US-UK and NATO offered far less in the latter period given that
they were bogged down in the Middle East.

Conclusion

Perhaps nothing substantial for Tamils in Sri Lanka will come out of
this Human Rights Geo-Political game, not simply in and of itself. But
the game’s rules are changed, at least in this area of the world,
when so many NAM members have not sided with a fellow member. I believe
that this is the case, in large part, because the evidence of gross
atrocities has come to the surface. No doubt, US+ machinations have
had some effect. But we should not be fooled that these governments
are interested in the human rights of any people. The current president
sees an opportunity to score points by pointing a finger at a real culprit,
just as he sought to do in Libya under false pretenses and as he is
trying in Syria. He, like all capitalist presidents, seeks oil, profits
and domination. He can afford to point a finger at Sri Lanka’s
government today, because he has lost influence there and because he
wants re-election votes from human rights-concerned citizens, albeit
beguiled ones.

Cuba, which started the ALBA coalition with Venezuela in 2004, needs
to reflect upon its foreign policy stance and especially in regards
to Sri Lanka. It has politically backed Sri Lanka, in part, because
they are both members of NAM, and Cuba often acts in a knee jerk manner
when the US points its finger at other nations, especially third world
countries—understandably.

Yet Cuba goes overboard in backing this most ruthless Sri Lankan regime
responsible for scores of thousands of civilian deaths, incarcerating
hundreds of thousands without due process, continues militarizing traditional
Tamil homeland in the North and East, taking over homes, businesses,
places of worship and building hotels upon Tamil graveyards.

Cuba’s has acted immorally, and in contrast to its long-time
solidarity with the oppressed and exploited peoples of the world.

The evidence of war crimes, crimes against human, and even genocide,
is much too vivid due to testimonies of victims, satellite photos and
the excellent Channel 4 documentaries with photos and videos taken either
by UN aid workers, some by victims or by Sri Lankan murdering soldiers
and then sold or otherwise released to the public.

If Tamils in India and in the Diaspora keep up the pressure, if left
organizations, grass roots groups, representatives of other oppressed
peoples seeking liberation (such as Palestinians, Kurds in Turkey, Basques,
Irish…) would join in united fronts for liberation for one and
all, then we might be able to bring some real hope for Tamils in Sri
Lanka.

Be not fooled: The US does not want true accountability, or a Tamil
Eelam homeland for the oppressed minority, but the spotlight is turned
on and peoples’ power could stoke the light bringing, at least,
relief to the down-trodden Tamil people.